Stephen on "All-In" - "We spend max, max money year in and year out

[Sydla]

The BTB article uses a gratuitous time frame in a market that has a 3 year cycle from the NFLPA, a 1 year cycle for the NFL accounting, a 4-5 year cycle for first round picks, and a 4 year cycle for other picks, and a variance from 1 to 10 years for VFA.

You think cherry picking a 3 year period because of recency bias is valid. It's not.

Huh? Cherry picking a three year period?

They used direct NFLPA data for 2013-2016 which is a 4 year period. Then they used research from a national writer for 2017-2019 and then used direct NFLPA data again for 2021-2023.

There was nothing cherry picked. It's 9 years of data over a 10 year period. Now unless the Cowboys spent a crap ton of cash in 2020, the Cowboys are one of the bottom quarter teams in terms of actual cash spent on their roster over the last decade.

 

[CowboyStar88]

Oh so I was replying to you but I as not condescending there but I clearly enjoy being condescending in my replies.

We’re just going in circles at this point.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Huh?

They used direct NFLPA data for 2013-2016 which is a 4 year period. Then they used research from a national writer for 2017-2019 and then used direct NFLPA data again for 2021-2023. It wasn't just for first round picks, it was for total cash spent across the roster.

There was nothing cherry picked. It's 9 years of data over a 10 year period. Now unless the Cowboys spent a crap ton of cash in 2020, the Cowboys are one of the bottom quarter teams in terms of actual cash spent on their roster over the last decade.

4 years. Point still stands.

I am talking about looking at all the dynamics not fixating on one. Why when I list them all you would think that is beyond me but it fits.

And it looked at individual 4 year blurbs. That is not looking at 10 years. They even admit it in the article:

This is, of course, a simplified look at cap management, and you can’t just convert cap space two years out into cash in the current year (you’d do that via a lot of proration in your player contracts).

of course they do it anyway and conclude what your spouting.

 

[Typhus]

Somehow other teams are signing their top players and not trying to use paying them as an excuse for why they aren't willing to spend more money through free agency. Not going to try and blame the players for Stephen acting like the Cowboys are the only FO every season who has to find ways to pay the top players on the roster. They aren't, yet are the main ones always using that as an excuse for why they get truly go "all in."

Yes my friend, this some deep deep logic being employed by Jerry and son.
They are so ahead of the game that they have everyone fooled going into this year's draft, we can do anything because we need everything.
Actually, they are not total idiots, at least they show those of us paying attention exactly what they are doing.

 

[Sydla]

4 years. Point still stands.

I am talking about looking at all the dynamics not fixating on one. Why when I list them all you would think that is beyond me but it fits.

And it looked at individual 4 year blurbs. That is not looking at 10 years. They even admit it in the article:


of course they do it anyway and conclude what your spouting.

LOL the point doesn't stand.

First, they had 10 years out of 11 years in data. 7 of those years were direct data from the NFLPA.

Second, you think that quote helps you but you took it completely out of context. That comment about it being simplistic and converting cap space to cash a few years out was simply referencing the very simplistic scenario they showed that highlights how teams operating under the same cap constraints can actually end up spending more cash than other teams.

And we know this is true because WE ACTUALLY HAVE DATA from 10 out of the last 11 years showing despite all operating under the same cap constraints, teams have spent a varying amount of cash on their rosters over the same period.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL the point doesn't stand.

First, they had 10 years out of 11 years in data. 7 of those years were direct data from the NFLPA.

Second, you think that quote helps you but you took it completely out of context. That comment about it being simplistic and converting cap space to cash a few years out was simply referencing the very simplistic scenario they showed that highlights how teams operating under the same cap constraints can actually end up spending more cash than other teams.

And we know this is true because WE ACTUALLY HAVE DATA from 10 out of the last 11 years showing despite all operating under the same cap constraints, teams have spent a varying amount of cash on their rosters over the same period.

No you don't you have multiple datasets -none of which are 10 years- that they had no idea how to normalize -as evidenced by my quote- and tried to shoehorn them together.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Sydla]

No you don't you have multiple datasets -none of which are 10 years- that they had no idea how to normalize -as evidenced by my quote- and tried to shoehorn them together.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

LOL, they literally have 10 out of 11 years of actual cash spending. Cash spending is a year to year thing. And they pieced together 10 out of 11 years of cash spending. And that gives a pretty fair picture of the amount of REAL MONEY teams have spent on their rosters. Unless of course you think the NFLPA, for example, doesn't know what they are talking about either.

The quote you used wasn't referencing the overall analysis, it was referencing a made up example they used to show how teams can spend more money than others over the same time period despite operating under the same cap.

The only person that has no idea what they are talking about is you. It's embarrassing at this point.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL, they literally have 10 out of 11 years of actual cash spending. Cash spending is a year to year thing. And they pieced together 10 out of 11 years of cash spending. And that gives a pretty fair picture of the amount of REAL MONEY teams have spent on their rosters. Unless of course you think the NFLPA, for example, doesn't know what they are talking about either.

The quote you used wasn't referencing the overall analysis, it was referencing a made up example they used to show how teams can spend more money than others over the same time period despite operating under the same cap.

The only person that has no idea what they are talking about is you. It's embarrassing at this point.

The data initially may be NFLPA but the data was processed by different sources for each data set.

Any time you combine datasets you have to normalize them. Prima facie not only do they not do that but further they admit that their process is lacking.

You think it valid to combine data sets without normalization. That is demonstrable ignorance.

 

[Adreme]

Huh? Cherry picking a three year period?

They used direct NFLPA data for 2013-2016 which is a 4 year period. Then they used research from a national writer for 2017-2019 and then used direct NFLPA data again for 2021-2023.

There was nothing cherry picked. It's 9 years of data over a 10 year period. Now unless the Cowboys spent a crap ton of cash in 2020, the Cowboys are one of the bottom quarter teams in terms of actual cash spent on their roster over the last decade.

Basically using the years after the big contracts are signed for the starting point in the data. The point he is making, and he is technically not wrong, is that over time all 32 teams spend exactly the same amount. Whether they frontload the spending, and backload the cap hits, or it is more evenly spread, the amount of money being spent overall is a constant, because that is what it means to have a cap.

 

[Sydla]

The data initially may be NFLPA but the data was processed by different sources for each data set.

Any time you combine datasets you have to normalize them. Prima facie not only do they not do that but further they admit that their process is lacking.

You think it valid to combine data sets without normalization. That is demonstrable ignorance.

One, no one "processed" the NFLPA data. It came directly from them. Seems like you want to try to make some claim here that Blogging the Boys somehow manipulated the data or recast it but all they did was simply repeat what the NFLPA released. And the NFLPA tracks that data because it's used to make sure the league is in compliance with the CBA.

Second, explain why you need to "normalize" physical cash spent by each NFL team in the years provided? It's simply a totaling of numbers - that is, how much cash each team spent in a given year on their roster. Not how much cap space they used, how much actual cash left their bank accounts and went to the players.

 

[Sydla]

Basically using the years after the big contracts are signed for the starting point in the data. The point he is making, and he is technically not wrong, is that over time all 32 teams spend exactly the same amount. Whether they frontload the spending, and backload the cap hits, or it is more evenly spread, the amount of money being spent overall is a constant, because that is what it means to have a cap.

In theory sure, in actuality and practice, no. Again, the data shows this.

You'd think that if you looked at actual cash spent over an 11 year period, you'd see a fairly consistent level of cash spent by each team each year over that 11 year period. But you don't. And this is because while the cap is the same for all, teams manipulate the cap a variety of ways and given that, you see a wide range of actual cash monies spent on rosters over that same period.

And this all kind of misses the main point here. We know teams have spent different levels of cash on their rosters over the last decade. We also know all teams operated under the same cap constraints, limitations on contracts, etc. And yet, over that decade period, the Cowboys are in the bottom quarter of the league in terms of actual physical cash spent on their roster. That's just a fact. So when Stephen says hey we spend as much as everyone else, he's not telling the truth.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

One, no one "processed" the NFLPA data. It came directly from them. Seems like you want to try to make some claim here that Blogging the Boys somehow manipulated the data or recast it but all they did was simply repeat what the NFLPA released. And the NFLPA tracks that data because it's used to make sure the league is in compliance with the CBA.

Second, explain why you need to "normalize" physical cash spent by each NFL team in the years provided? It's simply a totaling of numbers - that is, how much cash each team spent in a given year on their roster. Not how much cap space they used, how much actual cash left their bank accounts and went to the players.

More ignorance and at this point it is becoming abundantly obvious.

When you take the a segment out of a larger dataset and create a smaller one that alone is processing it. Of course we have no way of knowing how or what else was done because BTB in their ignorance never looked into it.

Google "do you need to normalize datasets before combining them" and educate yourself. here is the first link I got:

https://www.linkedin.com/advice/0/what-best-practices-normalizing-data-from-different-9qp3c#:~:text=Normalizing data from different sources is a crucial step in,analyze data from different sources.

 

[Adreme]

In theory sure, in actuality and practice, no. Again, the data shows this.

Except the data does show it which is obvious because it is a mathematical impossibility for it not to. Yes you can cherry pick segments, starting the date the year after the Cowboys sign a big contract(s), and make a segment look smaller but again it is impossible for it not to. By the laws of mathematics that have existed for well over a thousand years, they have to end up spending as much as everyone else over time. The only change is what year that money is spent in.

 

[Miller]

Huh? Cherry picking a three year period?

They used direct NFLPA data for 2013-2016 which is a 4 year period. Then they used research from a national writer for 2017-2019 and then used direct NFLPA data again for 2021-2023.

There was nothing cherry picked. It's 9 years of data over a 10 year period. Now unless the Cowboys spent a crap ton of cash in 2020, the Cowboys are one of the bottom quarter teams in terms of actual cash spent on their roster over the last decade.

I literally posted the exact NFLPS data on this by multiple sources and they ignored it. It’s bizarre how the facts are right there

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I literally posted the exact NFLPS data on this by multiple sources and they ignored it. It’s bizarre how the facts are right there

Multiple sources huh?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Except the data does show it which is obvious because it is a mathematical impossibility for it not to. Yes you can cherry pick segments, starting the date the year after the Cowboys sign a big contract(s), and make a segment look smaller but again it is impossible for it not to. By the laws of mathematics that have existed for well over a thousand years, they have to end up spending as much as everyone else over time. The only change is what year that money is spent in.

Teams can spend anywhere below the cap year by year and above the floor which is calculated every three years.

There is variance in there.

 

[CowboyStar88]

I remember the good old days when people thought it would be better when he had more influence than his father.

Welcome.

This has to be one of the biggest misses collectively by a large segment of fans me included. It appears it’s going to be worse, much worse.

Will we see any of the other nepo-offspring have a voice or say when it’s all said and done?

 

[KingCorcoran]

Except the data does show it which is obvious because it is a mathematical impossibility for it not to. Yes you can cherry pick segments, starting the date the year after the Cowboys sign a big contract(s), and make a segment look smaller but again it is impossible for it not to. By the laws of mathematics that have existed for well over a thousand years, they have to end up spending as much as everyone else over time. The only change is what year that money is spent in.

Under the current CBA each team must spend a minimum of 85% of the salary cap over any running four year period. Some teams can be more frugal than others, but only to a degree. Most teams are close to 100% for competitive reasons. The Cowboys spend the required amount of money on player compensation. Some teams work the cap rules better than others, like the Saints. Just like trying to use primarily the draft to build your roster, cap manipulation does not guarantee Super Bowl victories. It remains a combination of approaches or have Pat Mahomes as your quarterback. If the Cowboys wanted to hire a salary cap expert get the guy who does it for the Vegas Golden Knights.

 

[Sydla]

More ignorance and at this point it is becoming abundantly obvious.

When you take the a segment out of a larger dataset and create a smaller one that alone is processing it. Of course we have no way of knowing how or what else was done because BTB in their ignorance never looked into it.

Google "do you need to normalize datasets before combining them" and educate yourself. here is the first link I got:

https://www.linkedin.com/advice/0/what-best-practices-normalizing-data-from-different-9qp3c#:~:text=Normalizing data from different sources is a crucial step in,analyze data from different sources.

Let's humor you. Why would they need to "normalize" a simple measure of cash spent? How would/should they go about normalizing the cash spent totals? What needs to be done?

 

[Adreme]

Teams can spend anywhere below the cap year by year and above the floor which is calculated every three years.

There is variance in there.

Except then you would carry over the extra cap to future years. I would have to check but I do not believe there are any teams that are leaving cap space on the table. Certainly the Cowboys have not had a year where they had an extra 50m in cap space that they were not using. The fact that as fans know that means that we also know that people are selectively picking years in order to try and twist data to suit a theory. This would normally be less obvious but we have basic addition laws that show this to be true.